Rembrant

Hire Josh Epperson's dad, Randy to take you out with the dogs and kill one. Mike

Great idea Nummie! I think all these groups are good and have been good historically. There may be a couple of groups that are better than the others, and these would be: Arizona Deer Association and the Arizona Elk Association. The reason these may be better is because they are based in Arizona and our Arizona funds won't be filtered off to some other state. I don't want to bad mouth the RMEF because they do wonderful things, yet Arizona kicks butt in the fund raising process and I don't believe all of that money stays in Az. Your idea of researching these groups to see how they stand in reguards to "Ranching for Wildlife" is an excellent idea. I didn't think of that! I'm glad you have joined this forum. It's not really that much fun for most people to be watch-dogging all of this political stuff, but nowdays we need to be paying attention or we will lose bigtime. The times, they aren't-a-changing. THEY'VE CHANGED!!!!! Mike

I would question if finding the solutions to the ranchers 'problems' is best via the state legislature. Government solutions are not always best. There are a ton of things that have gone the rancher's way. Really good things like the sporstmen that help with ranch clean-ups; conservation groups like the RMEF that help with the clearing of invading tree species and water encatchments and other habitat improvement projects. This is an area where the Game Dept has also not dropped the ball. I would like to see an official list of how the Dept has bent over to help ranchers. I'm sure this list is quite extensive. I can list a few things off the cuff: DEPREDATION HUNTS SPORTSMAN ACCESS STATIONS WATER ENCATCHMENTS and HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS LAW ENFORCEMENT WILDLIFE SURVEYS and HABITAT IMPACT STUDIES All of which cost the Dept (that means us) money and at no cost to the ranchers. I think we should continue to work with the Game Dept and the various conservation groups - as we have been - to continue keeping our land in order and the access open. Don't think this "Ranching for Wildlife" thing will go away. As long as there is potential money to be made it will come back again and again. I still urge anyone who has not yet taken the time to write an e-mail to your state legislaters to express your concern about this misdirected proposal to please do so now. Thanks, Mike

Josh, That was an attempt to spell the expression that Homer Simpson fequently says when he makes a goof. Mike

Josh, No doubt I'm a foolish man. But if I ever accidentally kill a lion...I'M BRAGGIN! Man it feels good to write a post that doesn't have, "Arizona Legislature" in it... er... uh... DOOOUUGHT! Mike

I just came back to this string to get the names and e-mail addresses of the Natural Resources and Rural Affairs committee. Thanks again Nummie for lining us up with this information. I'm gonna get off this site right now and e-mail these seven other people. I just noticed that Nummie also listed the occupations of these representitives. One of them is a broker, one is in retail, one is a printer, two of them are unknown and two of them are ranchers! Don't think for one second that the cattle lobby hasn't done their homework! Still sittin' on your hands? Mike

Maybe Taulman is behind this and maybe he's not. Does it matter? One of the points in the proposal is that non-residents will not be able to obtain any of these negotiable tags. That is about as believable as the point in the proposal that says access wont be denied to anyone. "The love of money is the root of all evil"; evil includes lying, stealing and coveting. The only thing that I believe about this proposal is that if it were to pass, we will all be very sorry we didn't do more to stop it. Mike

I got a reply today from one of the District 1 legislators: Dear Michael, Thank you for your e-mail expressing concern about the "Ranching for Wildlife" proposal. I trust the issue will have a full hearing in the Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee and that your concerns will be addressed if any legislation is offered in this area. Ken Bennett Senate President -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mikfabritz@aol.com [mailto:mikfabritz@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:05 PM To: Ken Bennett Subject: Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Mr Bennett, I am very concerned about Item #6, "Ranching for Wildlife" proposal, wildlife management on private lands, which is slated to appear before the Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee on 1/26/05 at 1:30 PM in room SH109. It is being proposed that ranchers with at least 2000 acres could be alloted their own negotiable big game tags from the Arizona Game and Fish Dept. They would buy them at the current cost and be able to re-sell them to the highest bidder. Big game tags in the state of Arizona have never been negotiable by law. This has prevented the incentive for greed and kept the chances to obtain big game tags affordable and fair for the general public - youth and adults. There are many things about this proposal that concern me: The complex job of wildlife management will be, in effect, sub contracted out to these ranchers. The permit draw lottery which is fair to all Arizona residence will be disrupted and eventually replaced with 'permit by highest bidder' making hunting a rich man's sport and doing a disservice to the general public and our youth. These excessive revenues will not go to the State's Game Department, but instead benifit the ranchers only. In discerning if a rancher can qualify for this program or be terminated from it due to poor management, the Game Department's roll will be reduced to committee member status - to be shared with U.of A Extension Service personnel, State Land Dept. personnel and ranchers! With majority vote ruling! The most damaging part of this proposal is that the ranchers are wanting their current leased public lands to be included as part of their "wildlife management plans". Cattle ranch leases utilize most of this state! The wildlife in this state belong to the people of this state, as well as all of the public land that the ranches lease. This proposal is wrong for Arizona. Thank you, Michael Fabritz - life long resident and sportsman. I didn't know this guy is the Senate President. Maybe y'all should include him to the list of representitives of your own areas. I like the part about "IF any legislation is offered in this area". One e-mail to the state capital won't do anything, but if Arizona's 400,000 sportsmen and women send an e-mail, phone call or fax to these folks, I guarantee you THERE WON"T BE ANY LEGISLATION OFFERED IN THIS AREA! Have you contacted your representitives yet? Stop playing around. Go to www.azleg.state.az.us and figure it out. If you can't figure it out, e-mail me and I'll help you. Thanks, Mike

Thanks for the reply, BCoover. I apologize for coming on strong. It will be a strong temptation for anyone with 2000 acres to not want to score on this proposal. If it goes through, it will be horrible for us regular guys and our children. Mike

On the 26th of this month the Arizona State Legeslature will be hearing a proposal entitled, Item #6, "Ranching for Wildlife" - "Wildlife Management on Private Lands". This is the proposal that involves the allocation of big game tags to ranchers for resale to the highest bidders. I do not know exactly what all is included in this proposal, but we - the sportsmen and women of this state, need to find out. Fast! This could be astronomically worse than the USO fiasco. Please do not take my word for it. This is not a rumor. Check out this web site: www.azleg.state.az.us/ Look under "2005 Legislative Session" Click on "Committee Agendas" Find "Natural Resources and Rural Affairs" and click on that link. This proposal will be heard at 1:30 pm on Wednesday 1-26-05 in room # SH109. I would hope a whole bunch of C.W.com people can be there. This will be proposed by: Arvin Trujillo - Navajo Nation Dept. of Natural Resources Steve Rich - Wildlife consultant John Peay - Former Director of Utah Game and Fish Commission Fred Hinkelmeyer - Sportsman Sounds like the Navajos are trying to lock up unit 10's Big Boquillas Ranch. We have dicussed this before. The Navajo tribe owns the Boquillas Ranch but it is almost completely checkerboarded with state land that is leased by the ranch. To lock up this land and allow the tribe to sell tags that are allocated by the State of Arizona would be a travesty! But Unit 10 is only a small piece of state and federal lands that are leased by ranches. The last I heard, there are about 18 ranches in the Northern part of the state alone that are pooling their resources, with their lawers, to make this power-play. What can we do? Go to: "How do I find my Legislators" on the home page of the above mentioned web site, and e-mail, write and/or phone your represenitives, and tell them that you are vehemently against this proposal and the privitization of our state's big game tags. These greedy people are trying to turn Arizona's wonderful hunting opportunities into something that would more resemble Texas, where public hunting lands are limited and only the wealthy can afford the best tags. Also, help me find the facts. The information I have on this is sketchy. Let's learn the facts - fast! And then let's educate all of the hunters in this state and flood the State legislature with our VOICE! Mike

There are two simple reasons for an added hunt in unit 23: #1. The Game Dept administrators are doing their job of running a game research, management and law inforcement buisness which requires money. They're looking for more funds. #2. The Game Dept customers - we hunters - tend to complain alot about not getting drawn enough to our own satisfaction. So, if you were a Game and Fish administrator and were faced with the above mentioned 2 points, what would you do? That's right, find a place that another hunt can be squeezed into. The wildlife managers (wardens) work with these administrators to keep the quality in their units. The Dept has wanted to add these extra hunts for years. The managers have succesfully fought them off for years. I think it is not a good idea. I don't believe the central units can handle the added pressure as well as the southern units have. I will voice my opinion against it. I thank the Dept for allowing us a voice in the decision. Mike

Jamaro, The answer to your question is, "yes, elk too". Ranching leases cover almost the entire state, and the ranchers want all the big game tags in all of the leases. Take a moment to let that soak in, and then go to "Hunting in Arizona", read the post entitled, "Hunters Beware" and e-mail the representitives listed in that post and let them know how you feel about this "Ranching for Wildlife Proposal". Thanks, Mike

I just wanted to pop this string back up in front of y'all's faces even though there are two other strings on this hot topic. We need to stay all over this thing until it dies! What other ideas does anyone have to bring this to the attention of every single Arizona sportsman?? Mike

Thank you nummie, whoever you are. Your post is well written, and informative. I have already figured out who my district representitives are and have sent them e-mails expressing my concern about this proposal. I thank you very, very much for identifying the senate committee members with the power to quash this cancer. They will hear from me also! Thanks again!! Mike

AZforlife, This is not something that the AZFGD will pass or not pass. The Dept is not at all for this. This is a bunch of greedy weazling skallywags trying to sneek a land grabbing proposal by the state legeslature without anyone noticing. CHD is correct. This thing is way bigger than USO Do not fault the Game Dept. Do not blame Taulman. Y'all get off your butts and figure out how to be a constituant for the rights of Arizona Sportsmen. And then show everyone you know how to do the same thing! Mike

I've been playing 'Chicken Little': screaming, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!" over in the Hunting in Arizona section of this forum about this situation. I thought all you guys were out hunting or asleep or just sitting on apathetic hands waiting for the worst to happen so that you all could complain about it later!!! You can read the proposal at www.azod.com. It is the most greedy, rediculous, outlandish, dangerous, selfish writing ever put to paper. This is bigger than the USO fiasco, WAY BIGGER. This is a bunch of greedy ranchers trying to put OUR state and federal lands to use to make the ranchers money and screw the good people of the State of Arizona out of our rights to our own land and the animals that live there. In a nut shell: The ranchers want any ranch with 2000 acres of privately owned land to be eligible to create their own "Wildlife Management Plan" that would also utilize their entire lease! They want the Game Dept to do all the work of determining the amout of permits that would be allocated to the various ranches in the program - sell the permits to the ranch at the regular cost and allow the ranch to re-sell them to the highest bidders. All of the money made would go to the rancher. The rancher will decide what weapons will be used and when the seasons will be within a 100+ day period. I want to keep writing 'cause I'm real fired up about this. There's a whole lot of bull crap involved in this. The proposal wants the Game Dept watered down in committees to the point of impotence. But instead, go find the proposal and READ IT!! Then go to www.azleg.state.az.us/ and click on "How do I find my legeslators" and figure out what district you live in and who youre representitives are. Then E-MAIL, WRITE, FAX or CALL them and tell them what you think about this proposal. THEN tell everyone you know to tell everyone they know to do the same thing. The ranching lobby is powerful, but they ain't squat compared to the massive numbers of sportsmen and women of this state! The Game Dept does not support this. The Game Dept as a state agency must remain non-political. Because this is going before the state legeslature it is up to the people of the state to shout it down! Legeslators are paid to listen to their constituants. If the cattle lobby squeeks more than us they will win - and we will deserve it!!!! If we raise our voice we can quash this cancer dead out. This is our chance to walk the walk. STOP COMPLAINING AND DO SOMETHING!! Mike

Wowsie!!!! Great buck! Great job! You gotta feel good about that! Congratulations, Mike

Diamondbackaz. Good job. Excellent example! The Louis Maria Baca Grant is a prime example of a large piece of private land, that is NOT intermixed with public lands, that has been closed to public access and hunting since I can remember. And I don't think it's the only Baca grant in the state. I would agree with you that this would be a good situation for a wildlife Management Plan (WMP). Only problem is, the person who is in charge of managing this grant is some kind of inviromentalist lady who is strictly against hunting, and as a result has mismanaged (not managed at all) the wildlife to the point that the lions and drought have decimated that once fabulous mule deer herd. The surrounding units' deer herds used to benifit greatly from that "Sanctuary", but now it's gone down hill. Again, I agree. That would be wonderful. BUT, the proposal is called, "RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE". It is designed and proposed by ranchers. If the ranches in this state all looked like the Baca Grants, large tracts of private land without the leasing of public lands, then this idea would have some merit. But to allow ranches to take this kind of control of the public land leases will only benifit the ranchers and screw the public. 'Ranching for Wildlife' may actually be a good thing in other states that have giant private ranches. Arizona does not! The largest ranch in the state, the one that has the most private land is the Boquillas Ranch in unit 10. In fact, it may be the largest ranch in the nation. Would the "Ranching for Wildlife" work here? The owners (the Navajo Nation) say, "yes". I say, "NO WAY!!" Why? because the ranch is checkerboarded with state land. So is every other ranch in the state. Most of the ranches in Arizona have very little private land (usually just the land where the house and barn is), the majority of ranch land is leased - from us - residence of Arizona. Come to think of it, the Louis Maria Baca Grant people don't need this proposal either. They can work under the current system and charge people access fees, that is, if they wanted hunting on the grant - but they don't. And that's OK because they own the land. The ranchers in this state do not! We do. The Arizona Game and Fish Dept should always have complete control of the state's wildlife management and especially the big game hunting permits. Otherwise the system will be corrupted by selfish monitary gain. Mike

Audsly, Good Points. Thank you for your input. Mike

? State and federal lands to which a landowner has a lease can be included in the landowner?s ?Wildlife Management Plan.? (Those lands, however, cannot be counted towards the 2,000 acres of private land required for participation.) ? Management of state and federal lands in the Ranching for Wildlife program does not in any way prevent the public from accessing those lands to which they have legal access. Diamondbackaz, Leased lands cannot be counted towards the 2000 acres of land required for participation, BUT they CAN be included in the WMP. I just paraphrased this so that the second sentence is first and the first sentence is last. Does this help? What it means is this: if a rancher has at least 2000 privately owned acres within his 2 million acre lease, this proposal will allow him to obtain all the big game deer, elk, antelope, sheep, turkey, and javilina tags for this 2 million and 2 thousand acre area - sell them to the highest bidder, and legally deny anyone else to hunt there. The other part of the proposal about access sounds good but means nothing. If you didn't pay the ransom to the rancher for a deer tag, then you do not have legal access to that area in deer season and quite possibly any other time. Heck, this proposal hasn't even hit the state capital yet and for years ranchers have been denying access to public lands simply because the road goes through their small piece of property. And it gets worse. The proposed committee that decides if a rancher gets a WMP is comprised of: 2 Az Game and Fish personnel, 2 U of A Extension Service personnel, and 2 RANCHERS!! And a majority vote wins! To terminate a ranchers WMP, the proposed committee, gets watered down even further, and will be comprised of: 2 Az G&F personnel, 2 Uof A Extension Service personnel, 2 State Land personnel, and 2 RANCHERS!! And a majority vote rules!!!!! To all you people that complain that the Game Dept is only concerned about money - YOU AIN"T SEEN NOTHING YET!! What do you think the ranchers want? It has always been my opinion that the Arizona Game and Fish Dept. has done an outstanding job of wildlife management and law enforcement - on a budget. The over population in this state has forced wildlife management that is 'cutting edge' and decades ahead of the other western states. As other states grow in population, they use the Arizona permit/draw system as a model - something that our Game Dept has been using for over 30 years to insure quality hunting for our residents AND others. Why in the world would we allow this proven Game Dept that has soundly managed our wildlife to be reduced to a mere voice on a committee - for the benifit of RANCHERS???!!! And there's more - read the proposal. Mike

Diamondbackaz, Which lands that are currently off limits to hunting would this proposal increase hunting opportunities for? Be specific. This proposal will offer private negotiable big game tags to people who own 2000 or more acres. I'm glad that you disagree about the inclusion of public lands in Rancher's "Wildlife Management Plans", or WMP's. BUT, That is NOT what the proposal states. They are asking for entire leases to be under the control of the ranchers. Most ranchers don't own more than a few sq. miles of land (if that much). the rest of their ranch is leased from us. How many tags is a responsible management plan goin to allocate for a few square miles? Not many. Keep in mind that a person that is willing to pay a high dollar amount will want to kill a quality animal. This will not change the lifestyle of a rancher; this is not what they are trying to get, and this is not what is in the proposal. They want it all Bcoover, How much of your ranch in unit 23 is actually owned by your family and how much is leased? I don't have enough money to negotiate a price for a tag from you on land that is already mine. Not in this lifetime. Mike

At least in Texas the private land is actually private land - good for them. These greedy Arizona ranchers are trying to strong-arm us out of our state and federal lands, They do not own these lands. WE DO! Mike

I found an article that we have seen before: http://www.azod.com/topstory/Archive/2004/...r%20Arizona.htm Or find it easier by searching "ranching for wildlife, arizona proposal." This is entitled, "Ranching for Wildlife; A Proposal for Arizona". One of the bullet points is this: "State and Federal lands to which a landowner has a lease may be included in the land owner's wildlife management plan." This is the worst thing that could ever happen. If a rancher has under his lease, state and federal lands that can be included in his wildlife management plan, and he is allotted private big game permits for it, then that would mean that public big game tags as we know them now would be excluded from these lands. The only other kind of land is Forest Service land. Get maps of your favorite hunt units and look to see how much of any particular unit is State and Federal lands and how much is Forest Service. Do the whitetail (or any other) hunters want to be limited to hunting only on the National Forests? But wait a minute, aren't National Forests also Federal lands?! If this proposal passes we won't have hunt units. We will have "Ranch management areas", devided by the various ranching leases, with tags going to the highest bidders. Welcome to Texas Mike

I really dig those muleys too! No, I don't put in for the N. Arizona muley hunts, Chris. That would be a good idea if the Dec whitetail hunts weren't so darn hard to get drawn for. It has come down to applying for Arizona whitetails and out-of-state muleys, for me. Seeing one of those big, blocky, tall/square-racked muley bucks out in sage country is one of those special things that really makes me happy to be alive to witness. It is pretty odd that the desert muleys tend to hang on the bottoms when the majority of Western muleys can be found nearly everywhere - from desert to tundra! I was just answering the, "What's 'CARP' mean?" question. You know, Chris, that you are confusing the natives with the "cows" pronunciation. 99% of all us Arizona boys call them little creatures "cooze" - in spite of Amanda's efforts to educate us. I go back and forth with it. I like to say it correctly, but when I do, everybody looks at me like I'm from Mars. It's kinda like the Mazatzal Mountains. Everybody says "Matazel". Or Salome Creek - if you don't say "Sally Mae" nobody knows what you are talking about. We're a funny bunch. Mike

Happy birthday Keith!! Many happy whitetail treks to you. Mike